The article "Switzerland referendum on providing lawyers for animals" in BBC News catches my attention. This seems to be a big step in promoting animal rights.
The article reports that there is a nationwide referendum in Switzerland to determine whether there should be state-fund lawyers especially for animals. In Switzerland, there has been a regulation to appoint a lawyer to represent an animal in the case of cruelty since 1992. This referendum, if passed, would require the state to hire state-lawyers to represent for animals. Oppositions, including Swiss government, argue that this law would increase burden in tax spending. Giving that Swiss already has a very strict regulation for animals welfare, this law seems unnecessary. The Swiss farmers also oppose this law. They think that now Swiss laws for animal welfare have added to much cost on farming.
I think that this idea is quite interesting and praisworthy. It reflects Swiss' concern on animals welfare. Swiss animals should be treated with best care and humanity. However, I wonder how many cases on cruelty occur each year. If there are not many cases, it might not be worth spending tax for hiring special lawyers to take care of the cases. Giving the current recession, most government try to cut spending, it might not be a suitable time to pass this law. Maybe in the future, if the economy become better, it might be better time to consider aninmal right and welfare more generously and thoroughly.
Another thing is that while Switzerland is discussing about the lawyers for animals, other countries in another parts of the world still think that owners have full authority over their pets. Pets are property of the owners. This idea is not different from the attitude towards slave in the past. In the future I hope that this attitude would be eliminated from the society as same as the idea that slaves are the properties of the owners has been eliminated.
The article reports that there is a nationwide referendum in Switzerland to determine whether there should be state-fund lawyers especially for animals. In Switzerland, there has been a regulation to appoint a lawyer to represent an animal in the case of cruelty since 1992. This referendum, if passed, would require the state to hire state-lawyers to represent for animals. Oppositions, including Swiss government, argue that this law would increase burden in tax spending. Giving that Swiss already has a very strict regulation for animals welfare, this law seems unnecessary. The Swiss farmers also oppose this law. They think that now Swiss laws for animal welfare have added to much cost on farming.
I think that this idea is quite interesting and praisworthy. It reflects Swiss' concern on animals welfare. Swiss animals should be treated with best care and humanity. However, I wonder how many cases on cruelty occur each year. If there are not many cases, it might not be worth spending tax for hiring special lawyers to take care of the cases. Giving the current recession, most government try to cut spending, it might not be a suitable time to pass this law. Maybe in the future, if the economy become better, it might be better time to consider aninmal right and welfare more generously and thoroughly.
Another thing is that while Switzerland is discussing about the lawyers for animals, other countries in another parts of the world still think that owners have full authority over their pets. Pets are property of the owners. This idea is not different from the attitude towards slave in the past. In the future I hope that this attitude would be eliminated from the society as same as the idea that slaves are the properties of the owners has been eliminated.
__________
References
Foulkes, I. (2010, March 7). Switzerland referendum on providing lawyers for animals. BBC News. Retrieved March 7, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8554012.stm
This was another story that had already caught my interest. I'm waiting now for the update on the referendum results.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the issue of cruelty applies only to pets. It's hard to see why pets deserves more concern than other animals used by humans.(Would you have written that last sentence the same way? Why or why not? What is the obvious alternative?) If we care about cruel and painful treatment of pets, shouldn't we care equally about the cruelty or suffering caused to farm animals reared for human food? This is where I think that Stephen Law, whose essay on vegetarianism some have already read, goes wrong. It is not killing animals to eat them that seems wrong to me, but causing pain and suffering. And that is why I think that most people should refuse to eat most of the meat that they do in fact eat - by buying it, they very directly contribute to causing suffering on a large scale in agri-business sector which appears to care nothing for the chickens, pigs and other animals it rears to feed the common human lust for animal flesh.